The link to the full editorial is on the previous page, about 3/4 of the way down. I was going to type in the URL again, but was seized by a vast ennui. 
Here is a good article on Jessica Lynch… From Congressman Dennis Kucinich.
The Iraqi ambassador to the UN stated that the chemicals had been disposed of and that soil sampling would yield non toxic but verifiable residue that would account for the entire undocumented volume. Verification by U.N. inspectors was pre-empted by our rush to war. Winter was passing and we wouldn’t want our soldiers to be uncomfy in their hot uniforms. Not to mention the growing swell of millions of voices around the world in opposition to the needless murder of countless Iraqis. But since those weren’t American lives, they don’t count. Their suffering isn’t real. They are after all, the BAD people that deserve it. They fired on our invading troops without even wearing a uniform! Kinda like the second amendment argument of self defense against an invading hoarde posed by NRA enthusiasts. Instead, we can flood our airways with images of the brave teenage girl; Jessica Lynch. Her suffering is real, unlike the tens of thousands of dead and dismembered Iraqis. Did S.H. have WMDs? Very definately. We know this because he bought them from the U.S. Did he have a right to own them as head of state of a soveriegn nation? Your call. We own a whole lot of the junk. Furthermore we don’t allow U.N. inspections because we consider ouselves above that by special privlege. Yeah but…S.H. invaded another country without provocasion. And the U.S. didn’t? Yeah but we live in a democracy so it is different…was George W. voted in? He was appointed by the Supreme Court without a majority popular vote and without a definative E.C. vote. But S.H. was an evil dictator with disregard for human rights.So is camp X-ray so much different? Does the patriot act make us a freer nation by limiting our civil liberties and enabling greater governmental intrusion into our personal lives? Yeah, but we only own WMD’s for a defensive posture. Fine, I’ll go off the whacko conspriatorial deep end. Isn’t it kind of odd that anthrax tracable to a government lab was mailed specifically to dems and left wing publications? Maybe I should write to Senator Wellstone and ask for an investigation. Blah.
Has Saddam hidden, or moved all those “dual use” factories as well ? There was some talk about North Korea shipping it’s uranium enrichment facility off to Iran, but I’ve heard nothing about convoys of GIANT trucks carrying Iraqi factories over the border. We knew they were there, so were are they ?
Ill admit it, I was duped. I didnt for a minute think that Powell would present false information to the UN in order to justify war.
I was adamantly AGAINST this war. I thought it was completely unnecessary. I was sure that weapons inspectors were going to be able to locate the WMDs given enough time.
Little did I know that they wouldnt have been able to. But for different reasons than those given by the Bush administration.
I agree with all four points.
Why would Saddam Hussein move his WMDs into a hostile neighbor’s country?
And when the American forces were rolling into Baghdad, he was all set to use them, but forgot the combination to the locker?
If you honestly think Saddam destroyed his arsenal, you are a lot more gullible than anyone who believes Bush.
You tip your hands when you take Saddams’ word over a man like Colin Powell.
Adaher, I dont think a single person here believes “Saddam Hussein’s word over a man like Colin Powell” based on character. I dont think a single person here thinks Saddam Hussein is a nicer or more trustworthy guy than Powell.
People are basing this opinion purely on raw evidence.
As soon as the 100-500 tons of chemical weapons show up we can discuss this further.
Hell, as soon as a single ounce shows up.
You can assume there are no WMD. But it takes a rather weird leap of logic to assume Bush lied about their presence. If they aren’t there, Bush and most of the rest of the world shared the same delusion.
It’s a logical fallacy to assume that an asshole is ALWAYS lying and the better man is ALWAYS telling the truth.
Sometimes the asshole happens to be right. And when the better man is a politician, you be 100 percent sure he isn’t ALWAYS telling the truth.
Just because there’s someone worse than you, doesn’t mean every word out of your mouth is the truth.
That is true, of course, but if you don’t know, who would you give the benefit of the doubt?
For some of you, Saddam is the man to trust.
Report just out. Defense Intelligence from sep 02’ says it is unclear if SH has stockpiles of weapons or production facilities.
So much for the weird leap. As far as the rest of the world, I simply recall the mantra, “Americans know SH has weapons of mass destruction.” Repeated ad infinitum until it became ingrained. In the same way, about 50% of the populace were gullible enough to beleive SH bore reponsibility for 9-11.
Er, Americans weren’t the only ones saying he had WMD>
And it is revealing that France and Germany and Russia did not use his innocence as a defense. They implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, acknowledged that they belived he had them.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that some in the international community weren’t equally duped by the fabricated pretext for war. The fact remains, the Bush admin was emphatic he definately had them, and the report released this morning seems to suggest they had intelligence to the contrary.
All right. Let’s assume for a minute that he was deluded as well, that all of the intel he received was completely wrong. That he made the right decision based on what he knew. If that is true AND it’s true that no WMD were there - both just possibilities, not certainties - then it we can conclude two things: that the intel communities were incompetent and that the president bears ultimate responsibility, no matter what. For if he wishes to lean on faulty intel - again, hypothetically - and use it as a platform form which to launch a military attack - then he must be held responsible for that.
He was very adamant about there being WMDs. VERY. They’re everywhere! he yelled. They’ll use them RIGHT NOW! he screeched. Now, if he honestly believed they were there but it turns out they never were there, then he’s incredibly stupid for taking such a strong stance - and alienating a lot of allies - on what might have been flimsy evidence.
Again, hypothetically.
Well, considering even the UN thought that he had WMD’s (as seen by some of the reports from Hans Blix, a UN weapons inspector), whom should we hold responsible for that? Why isn’t the UN help to the same accountability as Bush? How about Jacque Chirac of France? Or the German Chancelor (whos name for some reason escapes me at this moment)? Or how about all of the other people that said there were WMD’s?
Is it possible that the only one held accountable for this is Bush is simply becuase there are so many Bush haters out there? I think so. The hypocrisy of it all is astounding.
Yes, if Bush relied on CIA and FBI (and probably NSA) reports that turn out to be false, then some people should most certainly be fired. If the reports were incorrect on purpose (i.e., someone made them up out of malicous intent) then there should be a congressional hearing on it.
However, in the role of POTUS, he has no choice but to rely on his intelligence reports, unless of course, you think he should have personally been responsible for finding that intelligence out for himself. Of course, it that were true, then everyone would be harping that he should rely on his existing intelligence reports instead of trying to do it himself.
My point is that no matter what Bush does, some are always going to find fault in it.
What about the mass graves? What about him using mustard gas and serin gas on the Kurds? What about all of the Iraqi people that celebrated when he was overthrown? What about the fact that there is now progress between Isreal and Palistine (which some have attributed soley to the fact that SH is gone)? What about all of the good things that have happened now? What about SH’s sons abusing their people while living in the lap of luxury? Why didn’t SH come out and say “Hey, I’ve got no WMD’s come see for yourself”? I mean after all, the UN restrictions and sanctions placed on Iraq simply becuase the UN thougt he had WMD’s were costing him BILLIONS every year. If he didn’t have any, why would he be willing to lose that much money?
You cannot adequately explain why SH was willing to put up with all the sanctions if he didn’t have any WMD’s. How come he thwarted almost every attempt by the UN weapons inspections teams? Until you can show me why all this supicous behavior was ok, then I will go with the rest of the world that says they believed he had them.
Syria was in no way hostile to Iraq. In fact, a lot of the top Iraqi officials were said to have escaped to Syria, and there is nothing that leads me to believe that Syrai was hostile to Iraq.
Hmmm, could it be because Bush was the only one hell bent on bombing the shit out of a country and invading it without provocation or immenent threat?
Actually Bush isn’t the only one. You have the obvious choice of Mr. Blair and his countrymen. But then you also have all the other members of the coalition. Australia helped, same with Turkey. According to this cite (which is just the first one that I pulled up and seemed reputable despite their religous bent) there wer 49 countried involved in the coalition that helped to topple SH. Now sure, some of them didn’t send troops and only helped financially, but the point is that they all believed in principal what Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush were saying.
So since you picked out only one point out of the 10 or so questions I asked you, am I to assume that you have no answer for the rest?
Well, maybe because it wasn’t the French and the Germans that presented forged documents as evidence, and then actually invaded?
It’s also possible that GWB should be held accountable because he’s the one directly or indirectly responsible for all this crap.
No disagreement there about what should happen, but probably about who it should happen to.